letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer
Saturday, May 31, 2014
‘Operation Choke Point’ Details Disclosed in Government Memos
U.S. officials have opened at least 15 civil and criminal investigations into whether banks and payment-processing firms helped enable fraudulent activity, according to Justice Department documents made public Thursday.
Ethical Perils of Social Media for Lawyers and Judges
Of the 46% of judges using social media, 80% are on Facebook and over 30% are on LinkedIn, but activity on social media presents a number of ethical dilemmas for judges, attorneys, jurors, and litigants. In a recent case in Georgia, a judge stepped down after being scrutinized for sending a friend request to a litigant on his upcoming trial calendar and later releasing her on a personal recognizance bond. Similar activities from other judges and attorneys have resulted in violations of both the Code of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct, from unauthorized practice of law across state lines and breaching attorney-client privilege to posting inappropriate comments and sending friend requests to litigants and related attorneys. These ethical perils extend to jurors, who must be reminded of their own limitations in social media use with regard to pending trials. On this episode of The Digital Edge, hosts Sharon Nelson and Jim Calloway interview Judge Herbert B. Dixon, Jr., discussing stories of collateral damage associated with inappropriate social media use and ways legal professionals can avoid ethical missteps. Stay tuned at the end for Judge Dixon's 4 Questions to Ask Yourself Before Posting on Social Media.
Judge Herbert B. Dixon, Jr. sits on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and is a former chair of the National Conference of State Trial Judges. He is the technology columnist for The Judges' Journal magazine and a former member of the ABA Techshow Planning Board. Judge Dixon is Senior Judicial Advisor to William and Mary Law School's Courtroom 21 Project, the Presiding Judge for the Superior Court's Technology-Enhanced Courtroom Project, and a frequent speaker on topics related to the intersection of law and technology.
Judge Herbert B. Dixon, Jr. sits on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and is a former chair of the National Conference of State Trial Judges. He is the technology columnist for The Judges' Journal magazine and a former member of the ABA Techshow Planning Board. Judge Dixon is Senior Judicial Advisor to William and Mary Law School's Courtroom 21 Project, the Presiding Judge for the Superior Court's Technology-Enhanced Courtroom Project, and a frequent speaker on topics related to the intersection of law and technology.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-edge/2014/03/ethical-perils-social-media-lawyers-judges
bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer civil attorney
'Oh My Jesus!': Shots Fired During NPR Interview In Chicago
Correspondent David Schaper was speaking on tape with a community activist about efforts to clean up a Chicago neighborhood when a burst of gunfire erupted down the street.
criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases
Supreme Court rules against Michigan in Indian casino case
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 Tuesday in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that tribal sovereign immunity bars a state from suing in federal court to enjoin a tribe from violating the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) [25 USC § 2701 et seq.] outside of Indian lands. In this case the state of Michigan and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians brought suit to prevent the Bay Mills Indian Community...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/05/supreme-court-rules-against-michigan-in-indian-casino-case.php
Turkish court orders arrest of Israeli commanders involved in 2010 Gaza flotilla raid
[JURIST] A Turkish court on Monday called for international arrest warrants for four former Israeli military chiefs involved in a deadly 2010 maritime raid [UN report, PDF]. According to a lawyer working on the case, prosecutors are seeking life sentences [AFP report] for the commanders who they claim were responsible for Israeli commandos boarding the Mavi Marmara, part of a flotilla dispatched to break Israel's blockade of the Gaza strip, and killing nine unarmed Turkish activists. The ruling is the...
need a lawyer patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys
Friday, May 30, 2014
Sidley Austin Looks to Riverbed to Build a Broader Network
Sidley Austin had a legacy network connecting its 17 offices in the U.S., Asia and Europe, resulting in slow data transfers and limiting the firm's ability to centralize IT resources. To create better connectivity between offices, the firm upgraded its network with Riverbed appliances.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202473966828&rss=rss_ltn
employment law employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego
Supreme Court rules Secret Service agents entitled to immunity while protecting president
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday that US Secret Service [official website] agents are entitled to qualified immunity despite having treated a group of protesters differently based on their viewpoints. In 2004 while then-president George W. Bush [official profile] was campaigning for re-election, groups of protesters and supporters rallied around the patio-area of the restaurant where the president was dining. At the direction of two Secret Service agents responsible for the president's security, local police...
statutory law stupid laws traffic attorney traffic lawyer traffic ticket lawyer
No, Amazon.com Can't Have the .amazon Domain
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers rejected the e-commerce company's bid for the top-level domain ".amazon."
Law Firm Marketing Tips: What Small Firms Can Adopt From Large Firms
Many large law firms are embracing modern marketing strategies to be more competitive. Although some of the options are out of budget for smaller firms, there are many within reach. On this episode of Legal Toolkit, host Jared Correia interviews Jennifer O'Leary Cathell from Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP. Together, they discuss what marketing paradigms and strategies small firms can adopt from the big firms. Whether your firm is in need of a new website or new look, there are many obtainable objectives to explore. Tune in to learn more about design by committee, relevant metrics, and when to hire outside consultants.
Jennifer O'Leary Cathell is the eMarketing, Design and Brand Manager at Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, where she conceptualizes, produces and enforces the visual identity for the firm's brand. She oversees the creation, design and production of all Edwards Wildman marketing materials, including websites, blogs and videos. Prior to her 16 years with Edwards Wildman, Cathell worked with the Warren Group (publisher of Banker and Tradesman).
Jennifer O'Leary Cathell is the eMarketing, Design and Brand Manager at Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, where she conceptualizes, produces and enforces the visual identity for the firm's brand. She oversees the creation, design and production of all Edwards Wildman marketing materials, including websites, blogs and videos. Prior to her 16 years with Edwards Wildman, Cathell worked with the Warren Group (publisher of Banker and Tradesman).
divorce atterney divorce attorney divorce lawers divorce lawyer divorce lawyers
The Best of Legal Tech for Solos and Small Firms 2014
There are a multitude of technology options to help run small firms and solo practices, but deciding on which ones can be a daunting endeavor. Mac vs. PC, practice management systems, and encryption of client data are among numerous issues attorneys must resolve. On this episode of The Digital Edge, hosts Sharon Nelson and Jim Calloway interview John Simek from Sensei Enterprises. Together, they discuss modern innovations that make running firms easier and keep client data safe. Tune in to learn more about meta data, benefits of paperless, and John's favorite software tools.
John Simek is the vice president of Sensei Enterprises, a digital forensics, information technology and information security firm located in Fairfax, Virginia. He is a co-author of The 2014 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide: Critical Decisions Made Simple, published by the American Bar Association along with many other books on technology, security and electronic evidence. John is a testifying expert and holds many technical certifications. He's also a co-host on another Legal Talk Network podcast, the Digital Detectives.
John Simek is the vice president of Sensei Enterprises, a digital forensics, information technology and information security firm located in Fairfax, Virginia. He is a co-author of The 2014 Solo and Small Firm Legal Technology Guide: Critical Decisions Made Simple, published by the American Bar Association along with many other books on technology, security and electronic evidence. John is a testifying expert and holds many technical certifications. He's also a co-host on another Legal Talk Network podcast, the Digital Detectives.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-edge/2014/05/best-legal-tech-solos-small-firms-2014
immigration law immigration lawyer immigration lawyers injury attorney
Project Aims To Attract, Train Public Defenders
Atlanta-based nonprofit Gideon's Promise has launched a new program called the Law School Partnership Project, aimed at making it easier for Southern public defenders to hire talented new law graduates.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202631276654?rss=rss_nlj
colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law conservator
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Man Busted Using “Find My iPad” Asserts Lame Defense
There comes a time in every thief’s life … Okay, so a lot of thieves won’t just come clean. But seriously dude – cut a deal. Next time you’ll turn the iPad off, or at least its location services. As reported by The Canberra Times (Australia):
A court has been asked to decide whether a man trying to find his allegedly stolen iPad was acting unlawfully when he tracked it down to a north Canberra townhouse using Apple’s anti-theft app and a GPS.
Police, acting on the man’s information, allegedly discovered the iPad and a cache of stolen items at the Forde house where 49-year-old Alden Harder lived.
Don’t draw any comparisons to “the decider,” but The Juice would not even take this under advisement. What’s the “lame defense” referenced in the post’s title?
Mr Harder’s lawyer has argued the man physically trespassed on his client’s property while searching for the iPad and had also committed ”trespass via radio wave” when he activated an alarm on the device while it was inside Mr Harder’s house.
Mr Harder has not been charged with any offence.
Yet.
On Monday, police applied to the ACT Magistrates Court for a forensic procedures order, asking for the man to submit to fingerprinting.
Mr Harder is fighting the order.
Police allege the iPad was stolen from a house that was under construction in Braddon on May 24 but the theft wasn’t reported until three days later.
They say the owner used Apple’s in-built Find My iPad service and his GPS to track down the iPad to Mr Harder’s townhouse in Forde on May 25. He walked around the property and looked in a window.
Find My iPad allows users to remotely track their missing or stolen iPad via GPS and to send messages, trigger an alarm or wipe their device.
It should be noted that THIS DOES NOT WORK IF THE LOCATION SERVICES ARE DISABLED OR THE DEVICE IS OFF.
The man went to police with the information but was apparently unable to elicit action.
The court heard the man went back to the townhouse a second time on May 29 and used the app to remotely trigger the alarm on the iPad, which he then heard ringing inside the garage.
Police then obtained a search warrant for Mr Harder’s house.
They allegedly discovered the iPad and a haul of other items, including laptops and a police officer’s badge, which were said to have been stolen from as far back as 2009.
Jackpot!
The court heard police wanted to take Mr Harder’s fingerprints to see if they matched prints taken from the scene of the iPad theft and another burglary.
But Mr Harder’s lawyer Paul Edmonds argued the search was based on evidence which was obtained unlawfully because the man trespassed on his client’s property while walking round the townhouse.
Blah, blah, blah. The Juice is with the prosecutor on this one.
But prosecutor Keegan Lee dismissed that argument as ”an absurd expansion of the definition of a trespass”.
Mr Lee said if electronic transmission were a trespass then ”I would safely say nearly everybody in this courtroom has committed that act by having a wireless router” that transmitted Wi-Fi internet through their homes and into their neighbours’ property.
Boom! Here’s the source. (The Magistrate later ruled that their was no electronic trespass.)
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/2XSGN8-y100/asfd-5.html
criminal defense criminal defense attorney criminal defense attorneys criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers
Greece v. Galloway: Prayer in Government Assemblies
On May 5th 2014, the Supreme Court decided Greece v. Galloway, a landmark case about the right of prayer in government assemblies. Both sides of the argument invoked the First Amendment to make their case, but who is right and why? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi brings this issue to the forefront with opposing counsels Douglas Laycock, for the respondents, and David Cortman, for the petitioner. Together, they discuss the relative merits of their cases, the endorsement test, and the coercion test. Tune in to hear more about the future of legislative prayer and your First Amendment rights.
Professor Douglas Laycock is a Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Professor of Religious Studies at University of Virginia School of Law and one of the nation's leading authorities on the law of religious liberty. In addition to teaching for over 30 years, Professor Laycock has testified frequently before Congress and has argued many cases in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Laycock is an accomplished author on the subject at hand and the 2nd Vice President of the American Law Institute. Especially pertinent to today's episode, Professor Laycock argued for Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, the respondents, in the Supreme Court.
David Cortman serves as senior counsel and vice-president of Religious Liberty with Alliance Defending Freedom at its Atlanta Regional Service Center in Georgia. He also heads litigation efforts to defend and reclaim the First Amendment rights of public school students across the country. Among his many media appearances, Mr. Cortman has been on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Especially pertinent to today's episode, he served as counsel for the Town of Greece, the petitioner, in the Supreme Court.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.
Professor Douglas Laycock is a Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Professor of Religious Studies at University of Virginia School of Law and one of the nation's leading authorities on the law of religious liberty. In addition to teaching for over 30 years, Professor Laycock has testified frequently before Congress and has argued many cases in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Laycock is an accomplished author on the subject at hand and the 2nd Vice President of the American Law Institute. Especially pertinent to today's episode, Professor Laycock argued for Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, the respondents, in the Supreme Court.
David Cortman serves as senior counsel and vice-president of Religious Liberty with Alliance Defending Freedom at its Atlanta Regional Service Center in Georgia. He also heads litigation efforts to defend and reclaim the First Amendment rights of public school students across the country. Among his many media appearances, Mr. Cortman has been on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Especially pertinent to today's episode, he served as counsel for the Town of Greece, the petitioner, in the Supreme Court.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.
letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer
The Power of a Structured Settlement: A Personal Story
Today on Ringler Radio, host, Larry Cohen and his co-host, Jim Early, talk with Congressman Jim Langevin, a Democrat, representing constituents from the 2nd District in Rhode Island since 2001. Congressman Langevin talks about his own personal experience with a structured settlement years ago that helped him and public policy for structured settlements today. Hear one of the best cases for the long-term security of a structured settlement instead of a lump sum settlement.
personal injury lawyers power attorney power of attorney power of attorny private attorney
The Day Tripper Dilemma
If I was hoping to court the legally-ignorant, politically conservative reader, yesterday would not have been a good day for me. While lawprof Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit, couldn't be bothered to learn about the criminal justice system before opining about how to fix it, he had time to write about how mean I was to him. Not terribly surprising, given how lawprofs tend to be a bit sensitive,
What came of Reynolds' post was a curious thing, a swarm of his followers commenting in his defense. Most were just silly, reflecting the folks who follow his political agenda, and good for some lulz, but they raised an interesting dilemma: lacking education, practical experience or sufficient interest to learn about the substantive issues and problems involved, they ripped me a new one because the post here to which they were directed was the culmination of both numerous posts about Reynolds' disastrous Ham Sandwich Nation "fix" for the criminal justice system and even more numerous posts on the underlying issues.
One commenter made a good point, that my telling them to read a bunch of posts that would provide the substance that isn't in the one post to which they were directed is "weaksauce." He's right. It's not that this matters much, as they haven't come because they have any sincere interest in the subject. If they did, they would already be knowledgeable and wouldn't demand to be taught from the ground up.
But then, to the extent this is anything other than a humorous aside for those of us who are involved in criminal justice issues, it's an opportunity to educate the poor souls who are limited by Reynolds deep commentary (Heh?), and their point that the one post they read wasn't substantive is well-taken.
So if they can't be expected to read a hundred posts (and it's not really reasonable to expect them to do so), they lack any foundational knowledge on the subject and they're generally disinclined to disagree with their political guru, is there any way to address this gap?
Bear in mind that when the post that made Reynolds cry was written, it wasn't for the purpose of educating his followers but as the coda in the series of posts about his awful ideas to fix the system at the expense of defendants, which in turn was based on innumerable posts here about specific issues and problems with the system. Way too much to include in one post (and likely one full-length book, for that matter), and completely unnecessary for regular readers here or people who are knowledgeable about criminal law.
Obviously, I can't go back and rewrite the post as Criminal Law 101 for the benefit of Instapundit readers, with lengthy explanations that are obvious to the rest of us. Perhaps I should have anticipated that Reynolds would get all butthurt about it, write a post with his deepest thoughts, and cause an influx of his readers to come here to salvage his damaged dignity, but I didn't. And even if I had, it would have bored the daylights out of regular readers here. As SJ is neither political nor a plea for popularity among the Instapundit fans, the idea of writing a post in anticipation of the swarm seems outlandish.
One answer could be found on the flip side, if only Reynolds had an appreciation of the more thoughtful legal and practical impact of his politically driven ideas, such that his purportedly well-intended, if misguided, fixes were themselves more substantive, but it's hardly useful to blame the guy who proffers bad ideas for not understanding why his ideas are bad. If he did, he wouldn't have done so in the first place.
One might expect him, as a lawprof, to try to gain a far better basis of knowledge before going off, but that was one of the primary points of my rant about Reynolds in the first place. And he's playing to a political audience (which is a large part of the problem) rather than to an audience knowledgeable or seriously concerned about criminal law. It's easy to pass off shallow ideas to those who know nothing about the practical impact.
Yet, I missed an opportunity to educate a not insignificant group of day trippers who think they've got a clue because they read tripe like Reynolds' Ham Sandwich Nation. It's a shame to pass up an opportunity like that. It's a dilemma. I regret not having done a far better job of making use of the opportunity to illuminate.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
What came of Reynolds' post was a curious thing, a swarm of his followers commenting in his defense. Most were just silly, reflecting the folks who follow his political agenda, and good for some lulz, but they raised an interesting dilemma: lacking education, practical experience or sufficient interest to learn about the substantive issues and problems involved, they ripped me a new one because the post here to which they were directed was the culmination of both numerous posts about Reynolds' disastrous Ham Sandwich Nation "fix" for the criminal justice system and even more numerous posts on the underlying issues.
One commenter made a good point, that my telling them to read a bunch of posts that would provide the substance that isn't in the one post to which they were directed is "weaksauce." He's right. It's not that this matters much, as they haven't come because they have any sincere interest in the subject. If they did, they would already be knowledgeable and wouldn't demand to be taught from the ground up.
But then, to the extent this is anything other than a humorous aside for those of us who are involved in criminal justice issues, it's an opportunity to educate the poor souls who are limited by Reynolds deep commentary (Heh?), and their point that the one post they read wasn't substantive is well-taken.
So if they can't be expected to read a hundred posts (and it's not really reasonable to expect them to do so), they lack any foundational knowledge on the subject and they're generally disinclined to disagree with their political guru, is there any way to address this gap?
Bear in mind that when the post that made Reynolds cry was written, it wasn't for the purpose of educating his followers but as the coda in the series of posts about his awful ideas to fix the system at the expense of defendants, which in turn was based on innumerable posts here about specific issues and problems with the system. Way too much to include in one post (and likely one full-length book, for that matter), and completely unnecessary for regular readers here or people who are knowledgeable about criminal law.
Obviously, I can't go back and rewrite the post as Criminal Law 101 for the benefit of Instapundit readers, with lengthy explanations that are obvious to the rest of us. Perhaps I should have anticipated that Reynolds would get all butthurt about it, write a post with his deepest thoughts, and cause an influx of his readers to come here to salvage his damaged dignity, but I didn't. And even if I had, it would have bored the daylights out of regular readers here. As SJ is neither political nor a plea for popularity among the Instapundit fans, the idea of writing a post in anticipation of the swarm seems outlandish.
One answer could be found on the flip side, if only Reynolds had an appreciation of the more thoughtful legal and practical impact of his politically driven ideas, such that his purportedly well-intended, if misguided, fixes were themselves more substantive, but it's hardly useful to blame the guy who proffers bad ideas for not understanding why his ideas are bad. If he did, he wouldn't have done so in the first place.
One might expect him, as a lawprof, to try to gain a far better basis of knowledge before going off, but that was one of the primary points of my rant about Reynolds in the first place. And he's playing to a political audience (which is a large part of the problem) rather than to an audience knowledgeable or seriously concerned about criminal law. It's easy to pass off shallow ideas to those who know nothing about the practical impact.
Yet, I missed an opportunity to educate a not insignificant group of day trippers who think they've got a clue because they read tripe like Reynolds' Ham Sandwich Nation. It's a shame to pass up an opportunity like that. It's a dilemma. I regret not having done a far better job of making use of the opportunity to illuminate.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/12/the-day-tripper-dilemma.aspx?ref=rss
criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases
Greece v. Galloway: Prayer in Government Assemblies
On May 5th 2014, the Supreme Court decided Greece v. Galloway, a landmark case about the right of prayer in government assemblies. Both sides of the argument invoked the First Amendment to make their case, but who is right and why? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Bob Ambrogi brings this issue to the forefront with opposing counsels Douglas Laycock, for the respondents, and David Cortman, for the petitioner. Together, they discuss the relative merits of their cases, the endorsement test, and the coercion test. Tune in to hear more about the future of legislative prayer and your First Amendment rights.
Professor Douglas Laycock is a Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Professor of Religious Studies at University of Virginia School of Law and one of the nation's leading authorities on the law of religious liberty. In addition to teaching for over 30 years, Professor Laycock has testified frequently before Congress and has argued many cases in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Laycock is an accomplished author on the subject at hand and the 2nd Vice President of the American Law Institute. Especially pertinent to today's episode, Professor Laycock argued for Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, the respondents, in the Supreme Court.
David Cortman serves as senior counsel and vice-president of Religious Liberty with Alliance Defending Freedom at its Atlanta Regional Service Center in Georgia. He also heads litigation efforts to defend and reclaim the First Amendment rights of public school students across the country. Among his many media appearances, Mr. Cortman has been on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Especially pertinent to today's episode, he served as counsel for the Town of Greece, the petitioner, in the Supreme Court.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.
Professor Douglas Laycock is a Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Professor of Religious Studies at University of Virginia School of Law and one of the nation's leading authorities on the law of religious liberty. In addition to teaching for over 30 years, Professor Laycock has testified frequently before Congress and has argued many cases in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Laycock is an accomplished author on the subject at hand and the 2nd Vice President of the American Law Institute. Especially pertinent to today's episode, Professor Laycock argued for Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, the respondents, in the Supreme Court.
David Cortman serves as senior counsel and vice-president of Religious Liberty with Alliance Defending Freedom at its Atlanta Regional Service Center in Georgia. He also heads litigation efforts to defend and reclaim the First Amendment rights of public school students across the country. Among his many media appearances, Mr. Cortman has been on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Especially pertinent to today's episode, he served as counsel for the Town of Greece, the petitioner, in the Supreme Court.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.
international law international law schools internet lawyer labor attorney lafayette attorney
SMU's Next Law Dean Has Administrative Background
Southern Methodist University has named Wake Forest University Vice Provost Jennifer Collins as the next dean of its Dedman School of Law. Collins, who has also taught law at Wake Forest since 2003, will assume the SMU deanship in July.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202634048159?rss=rss_nlj
criminal defence lawyer criminal defense criminal defense attorney criminal defense attorneys
You Really Shot The Guy, INSIDE Little Caesars, For That?
Nothing will resolve the disagreement between those who believe concealed carry laws are a good thing, and those who think they are idiotic. Though we can’t know with certainty, Mr. Randall White is probably in the latter group. As reported by The Tampa Bay Times:
Police said the incident unfolded about 4 p.m. inside the Little Caesars, 3463 Fourth St. N, after Randall White, 49, got mad about his service.
White said he got mad because his thin-crust vegetable pie was taking longer than the 10 minutes he was promised. “Twenty minutes later, I’m like, ‘Where’s my pizza?’ ” White said.
That did not go down well with another patron.
Another man in line, Michael Jock, 52, of St. Petersburg admonished White. That “prompted them to exchange words and it became a shoving match,” said police spokesman Mike Puetz.
White raised a fist. Jock, a concealed-weapons permit holder, pulled out a .38 Taurus Ultralight Special Revolver.
Wo there. You’re pulling a gun over an argument – that you started – in a take-out line in a restaurant? Um, yeah.
He fired one round, hitting White in the lower torso. The men grappled and the gun fired again, hitting White in roughly the same spot, police said.
Well, that solved everything… And what exactly did the shooter tell the cops?
After the shooting, both men went outside and waited for police. Jock told officers the shooting was justified under “stand your ground,” Puetz said.
“He felt he was in his rights,” Puetz said. “He brought it up specifically and cited it to the officer.”
Seriously, that’s what he said.
He told officers he feared for his life. He mentioned that he thought White had an object in his hand, then backed off that when officers pressed him. Florida’s “stand your ground law” says people are not required to retreat before using deadly force.
What did the police think?
“We determined it did not reach a level where deadly force was required,” Puetz said.
Police arrested Jock on charges of aggravated battery with a weapon and shooting within a building. He was released from jail on $20,000 bail.
Said the victim:
White was treated at Bayfront Medical Center and released. Reached by phone Monday night, he said he felt lucky to be alive. He was also angry.
“There are arguments every day, but how many people pull out a gun? When you pull a gun out and shoot somebody, your life better be in danger,” White said. “He was in my face and I pushed him. His life was not being threatened.”
White said he still has a bullet fragment in his back.
“I got lucky,” he said. “To me, that stand your ground rule … people are twisting it. He’s twisting it. I walked in to get a pizza and I got shot … I’m hoping the law prevails. We’ll see.”
You’ll find the source here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/KKjpUoQRHRU/ass.html
legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society legal counsel legal help legal information
Thailand soldiers arrest rights defender, son
[JURIST] Armed Thai soldiers on Sunday arrested human rights defender Sukanya Prueksakasemsuk and her son Panitan Prueksakasemsuk following a raid of their house in Bangkok. They were released on Monday from military custody [HRW report] on the condition that they give no interviews and take part in no political activities. Following their arrest the Thai military junta, the National Peace and Order Maintaining Council (NPOMC) provided, no information regarding their whereabouts, prompting calls from Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website]...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/05/thai-soldiers-arrest-rights-defender-and-son.php
attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Fighting Video with Video
Sheriff's deputies in Clark County, Ohio, have been given dispensation to wear "pocket cameras" on the job. Not because someone decided it was a good idea for them to video their interactions with member of the public, which is not only a perfectly fine thing to do, but one that has been embraced by other department. According to the Dayton Daily News:
But what the Clark County Sheriff's office is doing shows the danger of playing this game. Inexplicably, police haven't quite gotten the memo that they are rather unique public employees. They aren't let loose on the streets with guns and shields because they are just a bunch of cool guys, but because they hold a special authority that society has entrusted to them to protect and serve.
When they take the oath and strap on theSam Browne body armor, they do with the knowledge that they are no longer acting as ordinary people who just happen to be entitled to seize other ordinary people by pointing a gun at their head. Their authority comes from the job, from the People, who put up the money for their uniform allowance.
Are there rules for the use of pocket cameras in Clark County? Who decides when the camera gets turned on? Must deputies preserve what the camera sees, whether it's good for them or not? Does Gene Kelly, the Sheriff, get to decide what's of "evidentiary value" and what's not? Who preserves the integrity of the video? On whose computer does it get downloaded? Or deleted? Or altered?
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but that's true whether the picture is accurate or modified to show something false. And if the picture shows a cop doing something bad, then the lack of a picture is worth even more words, the words of argument that there is no proof of a beating, a false arrest, a killing.
But the set up of deputies carrying personal video to offset the public having video of their own smacks of a deeply entrenched "us" versus "them" problem, and provides all sorts of opportunity for facile abuse. Cops want to video their interactions for everyone's benefit? Cool. But then it has to be done right, used from the initiation of all interactions and remain on until the bitter end, preserved in a manner that secures it from any alteration and available to everyone, cop or non-cop alike, should it be needed.
Why isn't the public required to do so if that's what you demand of cops? Because you are cops, whose function is to protect and serve at the behest of the public. This is the life you chose and the obligation that goes with it.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Clark County Sheriff’s deputies are wearing pocket cameras that record their work to help their cases and to protect themselves against accusations of misconduct.So that's how it's going to be, if we record them, they record us. Tit for tat. Fight fire with fire. So nobody in Dayton will be arrested or hassled for videotaping police anymore? What's wrong with that?“Every call we go on, someone’s going to record us,” Clark County Sheriff Gene Kelly said. “We have that same technology.”
Deputies are not required to wear the cameras but can purchase them independently or with their uniform allowance.
Of course, that's not how it worked out when Rory Bruce was tried, but it reveals the one-way street attitude that video is going through on its way to maturity. When the cops want to use it, because it benefits them, it's perfect. A picture is worth a thousand words. When it reflects poorly on cops, it never tells the full story and should be completely disregarded.Kelly said that law enforcement can use the cameras to their benefit if there are false allegations.
“They say a picture is worth a thousand words,” Kelly said.
What Elliott records with his camera can be used for evidence.
“If I feel there are evidentiary purposes, I will submit it to the courts,” said Elliott, who has worn his for about a year.
But what the Clark County Sheriff's office is doing shows the danger of playing this game. Inexplicably, police haven't quite gotten the memo that they are rather unique public employees. They aren't let loose on the streets with guns and shields because they are just a bunch of cool guys, but because they hold a special authority that society has entrusted to them to protect and serve.
When they take the oath and strap on the
Are there rules for the use of pocket cameras in Clark County? Who decides when the camera gets turned on? Must deputies preserve what the camera sees, whether it's good for them or not? Does Gene Kelly, the Sheriff, get to decide what's of "evidentiary value" and what's not? Who preserves the integrity of the video? On whose computer does it get downloaded? Or deleted? Or altered?
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but that's true whether the picture is accurate or modified to show something false. And if the picture shows a cop doing something bad, then the lack of a picture is worth even more words, the words of argument that there is no proof of a beating, a false arrest, a killing.
Members of the Clark County Sheriff’s office are not permitted to have original copies of the digital media evidence after their shifts, according to digital media evidence policies for the office.
And what happens to the deputies if they do? Who decides what gets uploaded after a shift? Is this intended to prevent a deputy from screwing with videos at home or uploading embarrassing videos on Youtube of their interactions on the job?
There probably isn't anyone who disagrees with this, though its hardly as simple as Kelly would have it. We're still a ways off from figuring out how video will best serve "deputies and civilians," ignoring, of course, that deputies are civilians, but I hesitate to be overly critical of Ben Hunt, human resources and labor relations administrator at the Clark County Sheriff’s Office, for his confusion. It's got Tale of Two Cities potential, best and worst at the same time.“They can be used to protect deputies and civilians to be sure everything is safe and appropriate,” Hunt said.
Officials believe that the cameras will be helpful in protecting themselves and the community.
“I think there will be a time when everyone carries one,” said Kelly.
But the set up of deputies carrying personal video to offset the public having video of their own smacks of a deeply entrenched "us" versus "them" problem, and provides all sorts of opportunity for facile abuse. Cops want to video their interactions for everyone's benefit? Cool. But then it has to be done right, used from the initiation of all interactions and remain on until the bitter end, preserved in a manner that secures it from any alteration and available to everyone, cop or non-cop alike, should it be needed.
Why isn't the public required to do so if that's what you demand of cops? Because you are cops, whose function is to protect and serve at the behest of the public. This is the life you chose and the obligation that goes with it.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/14/fighting-video-with-video.aspx?ref=rss
attorney finder attorney law attorney lawyer attorneys bankruptcy attorney
Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Target Data Breach Suits
Attorneys who filed class actions against Target Corp. over its security breach last month have moved to coordinate the swelling tide of litigation, estimated at nearly 50 lawsuits.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202637342683?rss=rss_nlj
personal injury lawyers power attorney power of attorney power of attorny
Sidley Austin Looks to Riverbed to Build a Broader Network
Sidley Austin had a legacy network connecting its 17 offices in the U.S., Asia and Europe, resulting in slow data transfers and limiting the firm's ability to centralize IT resources. To create better connectivity between offices, the firm upgraded its network with Riverbed appliances.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202473966828&rss=rss_ltn
corporate lawyer criminal attorney criminal defence lawyer criminal defense criminal defense attorney
House Backs NSA Phone-Data Limits; Tennessee Brings Back Electric Chair
The AM Roundup: Law Blog rounds up the morning's news.
personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer personal injury lawyers power attorney
Meet Squire Patton Boggs
After months of Sturm und Drang, lobbying legend Patton Boggs LLP and international but low-key firm Squire Sanders have finally made it to the altar.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/05/27/meet-squire-patton-boggs/?mod=WSJBlog
dumb laws dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law
WILG, MBA, and Attorney Generals: Meet the Lawyers Keeping the Workplace Safe
Are you concerned about workplace safety? Learn how lawyers from the Workers' Injury Law and Advocacy Group, Massachusetts Bar Association, and Office of the Louisiana Attorney General can help. In this episode of Workers Comp Matters, host Alan Pierce interviews Douglas Sheff, Chuck Davoli, and Will Green to reveal how attorneys are making a big impact in workplace safety.
Douglas Sheff is the current President of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Senior Partner at Sheff Law. He has over 30 years experience in all aspects of personal injury law and is currently serving as the Chairman for both the Massachusetts Bar Association's Workplace Safety Task Force and the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys' Federal Legislation Committee.
Chuck Davoli is an attorney and sustaining board member for WILG and chairs its Workplace Safety and Occupational Disaster Committee. He is the Managing Partner for Davoli, Krumholt and Price and serves as a labor representative on the Louisiana Governor's Workers' Compensation Advisory Council.
Will Green is currently an Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Louisiana Workforce Commission Office of Workers' Compensation where he assists the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation in developing and drafting legislation, rules, and policies for workers' compensation. In addition, he serves as general counsel to the Second Injury Board and is the former in-house counsel at Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation.
Douglas Sheff is the current President of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Senior Partner at Sheff Law. He has over 30 years experience in all aspects of personal injury law and is currently serving as the Chairman for both the Massachusetts Bar Association's Workplace Safety Task Force and the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys' Federal Legislation Committee.
Chuck Davoli is an attorney and sustaining board member for WILG and chairs its Workplace Safety and Occupational Disaster Committee. He is the Managing Partner for Davoli, Krumholt and Price and serves as a labor representative on the Louisiana Governor's Workers' Compensation Advisory Council.
Will Green is currently an Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Louisiana Workforce Commission Office of Workers' Compensation where he assists the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation in developing and drafting legislation, rules, and policies for workers' compensation. In addition, he serves as general counsel to the Second Injury Board and is the former in-house counsel at Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation.
attorney lawyer attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer
Federal Circuit Sides With Google in AdSense Patent Fight
Judge Sharon Prost rejected a patent asserted by a British Telecom affiliate, finding a post on an Internet bulletin board qualifies as prior art.
free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid getting power of attorney
BP to appeal oil spill ruling to Supreme Court
[JURIST] British Petroleum (BP) [corporate website] announced [press release] Wednesday that it will appeal a recent US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision to the US Supreme Court [official websites]. The March decision [JURIST report] by the Fifth Circuit rejected BP's claim that payments to alleged oil spill victims claiming economic losses should be excluded because the damages were not traceable to the spill. The extensive regional economic fallout [JURIST backgrounder] along the Gulf of Mexico states has...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/05/bp-to-appeal-oil-spill-ruling-to-supreme-court.php
find an attorney find attorney find lawyer free attorney consultation
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Perils of Law Firms Possessing Massive Amounts of Unreviewed Client Data
Some experts believe that, in addition to being prohibitively expensive for law firms to manage, maintaining immense amounts of client data increases the probability that it will be exposed to the public through a security breach or hack. That is why many like-minded firms are outsourcing data management to companies that specialize in it. On this episode of Digital Detectives, hosts Sharon Nelson and John Simek interview Ralph C. Losey from Jackson Lewis P.C. Together, they discuss how to manage large amounts of data, when to outsource, and what to do with unprocessed information. Tune in to learn more about dark data, how to select outside vendors, and hosting costs vs. storage costs.
Ralph C. Losey is a shareholder of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm specializing in labor and employment law with over 52 offices nationwide and 800 attorneys. Ralph serves as the firm's National e-Discovery Counsel in charge of electronic discovery issues. Ralph has limited his practice to e-discovery since 2006 and is the author of five books on e-discovery law and multiple law review articles. Ralph is also co-founder of the IT-Lex foundation and the Electronic Discovery Best Practices group, and the developer of an online training course in e-discovery, e-DiscoveryTeamTraining.com. Ralph is a frequent speaker at e-discovery conferences worldwide and a leading contributor in the field of Legal Search.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Digital WarRoom.
Ralph C. Losey is a shareholder of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm specializing in labor and employment law with over 52 offices nationwide and 800 attorneys. Ralph serves as the firm's National e-Discovery Counsel in charge of electronic discovery issues. Ralph has limited his practice to e-discovery since 2006 and is the author of five books on e-discovery law and multiple law review articles. Ralph is also co-founder of the IT-Lex foundation and the Electronic Discovery Best Practices group, and the developer of an online training course in e-discovery, e-DiscoveryTeamTraining.com. Ralph is a frequent speaker at e-discovery conferences worldwide and a leading contributor in the field of Legal Search.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Digital WarRoom.
lawyer office lawyers legal legal advice legal advice online
Zimmerman: No Appeal From The Court of Public Opinion (Update)
George Zimmerman was acquitted on a Saturday night. Keyboards were pounded. Reporters reported. Pundits opined. And the jury in the court of public opinion rendered its verdict.
Almost no criminal lawyer, prosecution or defense, saw a second degree murder conviction coming. Education and experience condemns us to view evidence and law with detached logic, so there is no emotionalism, no reliance on "common sense," to fudge the proof.
While juries regularly reach verdicts that bear little relation to the facts, evidence and applicable law, mostly because it's a deeply flawed system, that didn't happen here. The best discussion of what happened that has been produced thus far comes from the Unwashed Advocate, Eric Mayer, who succinctly lays it out.
Acquittal was the right verdict in this case, no matter how much you feel Zimmerman acted out of prejudice, or how terrible it is that a young man was killed.
But the court of public opinion rendered its opinion on twitter following the verdict. For those who embrace the "wisdom of crowds," consider its holding:
1. Trayvon Martin's family should appeal the verdict, up to the Supreme Court if necessary.
2. On appeal, they can make George Zimmerman testify.
3. Then, George Zimmerman will be convicted because a young man is dead.
It's not that people intentionally determined that the Constitution should be ignored. It's that the crowds have no clue. Maybe they slept through civics class. Maybe they don't remember. Maybe they don't care. But less than ten days after we celebrated the independence of this nation, the court of public opinion has decided they don't like them.
There will be no appeal because of the double jeopardy clause, which precludes it. Zimmerman did not have to testify, and will never have to testify in a criminal prosecution, because he has the right not to testify. And most sadly, the fact that a young man is dead does not compel the conclusion that someone be convicted of a crime.
So much for the adoration of crowdsourcing, or the desiderata that the public can be entrusted with the handling of the law. In the court of public opinion, assumption runs rampant, as people get their own "feel" for right and wrong, and then become so entrenched in their own bias that they refuse to consider the hard details of evidence and proof. People need no trial to tell them what happened. They hear a story and whatever gut reaction they have to it becomes their reality.
As it turns out, much of what was told about the death of Trayvon Martin is either false or mired in mystery. When left with the proposition that we will never know what "really" happened, the significance is that the prosecution then lacks evidence to prove its case. But Trayvon is dead, so it's unfair since he can't tell his side of the story? True, but that doesn't change the requirement that a defendant be proven guilty. The rule is not proof if its available, assumption if it's not. Except in the court of public opinion.
Is there nothing left to do? There is the possibility of a civil suit for wrongful death by Trayvon Martin's family, just as Nicole Brown Simpson's family sued O.J. The standard of proof is lower, "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but the outcome will be money damages at worst, not conviction of a crime and imprisonment.
There is also the possibility of a prosecution in federal court for violating Trayvon Martin's civil right to live by shooting him, under the dreaded dual sovereignty that allows the feds a shot if the state fails to convict. That's what happened to LAPD Sgt. Stacey Koon in the Rodney King beating.
Will either of these happen? Time will tell. The former seems far more likely than the latter, but Trayvon's family may be more legally sophisticated by this point, such that they realize the difficulty that exists with providing evidence to prove their claim. It's not that they can't believe, but they can't prove.
As show trials go, this one has generated plenty of fodder for television heads to fill the empty minutes between commercials. But it has also shown that the court of public opinion can't be trusted. Americans still don't understand their own system. They don't get that the rights they want for themselves have to be given to people they despise as well. They refuse to accept that someone they feel with absolute certainty is guilty can be properly acquitted.
Did George Zimmerman have hate in his heart? Who knows. I don't. Neither do you, no matter how strongly you believe you do. But he wasn't proven to have killed Trayvon Martin because of his ill will toward a young black man, and when that happens under our system, acquittal must follow. Yet the court of public opinion refused to accept the verdict, instead pushing its million member jury deeper into ignorance.
There is one truth that neither conviction nor acquittal can change:
Update: Already this morning, television news has broadcast the twits of New York City politicians and candidates following the verdict. They have the potential to enlighten, to calm, to inform. Instead, they are pandering and inflaming the passions and ignorance of the public, playing the confirmation bias card.
Whether they too lack a working grasp of our legal system, or know better and just don't care, is unclear. Either way, a million people could end the day stupider than it began. Is it worth a vote? Don't answer.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Almost no criminal lawyer, prosecution or defense, saw a second degree murder conviction coming. Education and experience condemns us to view evidence and law with detached logic, so there is no emotionalism, no reliance on "common sense," to fudge the proof.
While juries regularly reach verdicts that bear little relation to the facts, evidence and applicable law, mostly because it's a deeply flawed system, that didn't happen here. The best discussion of what happened that has been produced thus far comes from the Unwashed Advocate, Eric Mayer, who succinctly lays it out.
Acquittal was the right verdict in this case, no matter how much you feel Zimmerman acted out of prejudice, or how terrible it is that a young man was killed.
But the court of public opinion rendered its opinion on twitter following the verdict. For those who embrace the "wisdom of crowds," consider its holding:
1. Trayvon Martin's family should appeal the verdict, up to the Supreme Court if necessary.
2. On appeal, they can make George Zimmerman testify.
3. Then, George Zimmerman will be convicted because a young man is dead.
It's not that people intentionally determined that the Constitution should be ignored. It's that the crowds have no clue. Maybe they slept through civics class. Maybe they don't remember. Maybe they don't care. But less than ten days after we celebrated the independence of this nation, the court of public opinion has decided they don't like them.
There will be no appeal because of the double jeopardy clause, which precludes it. Zimmerman did not have to testify, and will never have to testify in a criminal prosecution, because he has the right not to testify. And most sadly, the fact that a young man is dead does not compel the conclusion that someone be convicted of a crime.
So much for the adoration of crowdsourcing, or the desiderata that the public can be entrusted with the handling of the law. In the court of public opinion, assumption runs rampant, as people get their own "feel" for right and wrong, and then become so entrenched in their own bias that they refuse to consider the hard details of evidence and proof. People need no trial to tell them what happened. They hear a story and whatever gut reaction they have to it becomes their reality.
As it turns out, much of what was told about the death of Trayvon Martin is either false or mired in mystery. When left with the proposition that we will never know what "really" happened, the significance is that the prosecution then lacks evidence to prove its case. But Trayvon is dead, so it's unfair since he can't tell his side of the story? True, but that doesn't change the requirement that a defendant be proven guilty. The rule is not proof if its available, assumption if it's not. Except in the court of public opinion.
Is there nothing left to do? There is the possibility of a civil suit for wrongful death by Trayvon Martin's family, just as Nicole Brown Simpson's family sued O.J. The standard of proof is lower, "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but the outcome will be money damages at worst, not conviction of a crime and imprisonment.
There is also the possibility of a prosecution in federal court for violating Trayvon Martin's civil right to live by shooting him, under the dreaded dual sovereignty that allows the feds a shot if the state fails to convict. That's what happened to LAPD Sgt. Stacey Koon in the Rodney King beating.
Will either of these happen? Time will tell. The former seems far more likely than the latter, but Trayvon's family may be more legally sophisticated by this point, such that they realize the difficulty that exists with providing evidence to prove their claim. It's not that they can't believe, but they can't prove.
As show trials go, this one has generated plenty of fodder for television heads to fill the empty minutes between commercials. But it has also shown that the court of public opinion can't be trusted. Americans still don't understand their own system. They don't get that the rights they want for themselves have to be given to people they despise as well. They refuse to accept that someone they feel with absolute certainty is guilty can be properly acquitted.
Did George Zimmerman have hate in his heart? Who knows. I don't. Neither do you, no matter how strongly you believe you do. But he wasn't proven to have killed Trayvon Martin because of his ill will toward a young black man, and when that happens under our system, acquittal must follow. Yet the court of public opinion refused to accept the verdict, instead pushing its million member jury deeper into ignorance.
There is one truth that neither conviction nor acquittal can change:
A young man named Trayvon died. He didn’t need to die. That is both tragic and sad.And there is another truth that twitter cannot change. For all the vast information that has become available to us by virtue of the internet, there is no wisdom of the crowds.
Update: Already this morning, television news has broadcast the twits of New York City politicians and candidates following the verdict. They have the potential to enlighten, to calm, to inform. Instead, they are pandering and inflaming the passions and ignorance of the public, playing the confirmation bias card.
Whether they too lack a working grasp of our legal system, or know better and just don't care, is unclear. Either way, a million people could end the day stupider than it began. Is it worth a vote? Don't answer.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
criminal defence lawyer criminal defense criminal defense attorney criminal defense attorneys
A Humane Execution
In the long arc of America's search for the most humane way to execute criminals, lethal injection evolved as the gold standard. So why are Utah and Wyoming lawmakers reconsidering firing squads?
personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer personal injury lawyers power attorney
Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Keep Up Their Winning Streak
Following court decisions this past week, Oregon and Pennsylvania became the 18th and 19th states to recognize gay marriage. Only North Dakota has a ban in place that's not under legal challenge.
bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney
What Would Atticus Have Done?
Hearing that the mob was going to storm the jail and lynch Tom Robinson, the fictional Atticus Finch stood at the doorway to block their entrance. Among criminal defense lawyers, Atticus Finch is revered as a paragon of honor. Not all lawyers saw it that way.
Yesterday was Race Day at the New York Times, where two op-eds argued the failure of a certain verdict in Florida was due to the one word unspoken throughout the trial, race. In a "surprising" choice that suggests the power of an excellent public relations team, one op-ed was by Gloria Allred's daughter, Lisa Bloom, who, after explaining the basis for her assumption about what was inside George Zimmerman's head, illuminated the race issue with the insightful:
This isn't a legal argument, however. Bloom and Yankah are both writing from the legal perspective, but what they are writing about isn't legal. It's sociological, a condemnation of a society that is still racist despite having a black president. Anyone who thinks it's "problem solved" is delusional.
But Yankah contends that it is "the simplest of truths: that race and law cannot be cleanly separated." Cleanly? No, it probably can't be cleanly separated, though it's similarly unclear that this constitutes "the simplest of truths." There is nothing simple about it.
It gives rise to a troubling question, that Yankah fails to adequately address and is way over Bloom's head.
Does the introduction of race by the prosecution into Zimmerman's perceptions alter the rule of self-defense? Does it render his subsequent conduct unlawful, even if it would have been lawful otherwise? Should there be two rules of law, one for interactions between people of different races where perceptions of the significance of conduct is assumed to be racially related, if not motivated?
To point out that we still live in a society where race remains a pervasive unresolved issue is to state the obvious. To suggest that the criminal law should accommodate it is to present an intractable problem. Atticus Finch didn't hesitate to put his life on the line for his client, a black man accused of raping a white woman. But he didn't do enough because he didn't confront the racist society in defending Tom Robinson?
If the prosecution had been allowed, and inclined, to argue that George Zimmerman's conduct was racially motivated, and that his ultimate decision to shoot and kill Trayvon Martin was, at least in the tiniest of ways, based upon his race, would that have rendered his belief that he was about to suffer death or serious injury unreasonable? If his head was being beaten against concrete by a white youth, as opposed to a black youth, would the harm have been different?
The argument that this scenario would never have commenced had Trayvon Martin been a white youth in a sports jacket and khakis is likely true. It's pure speculation no matter how much your head screams "yes, yes, yes," of course, but still. Yet how would the law have been any different at the point where a shot was fired?
If we are to have a nation of laws to guide ourselves, how do we draw these vague, fuzzy lines where the law ceases to apply, where it's a free for all, where there is no longer a fixed right and wrong and everything becomes a matter of feelings, assumptions and personal perspective? Yankah may be right that race and law cannot be cleanly separated in our collective consciousness, but then we cease to be a nation of laws when we ignore one for the other.
You might prefer that to happen here, but will you feel the same when you sit in the defendant's chair? So what would Atticus Finch have done? He would have defended George Zimmerman based on the law, even if he failed to meet Monroe Freedman's expectation that he not be morally ambiguous. Atticus Finch would have still been the paragon of honor, even in the face of societal condemnation. That's what criminal defense lawyers do. That's what we are sworn to do.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
In 1992, Monroe Freedman, a legal ethics expert, published two articles in the national legal newspaper Legal Times calling for the legal profession to set aside Atticus Finch as a role model. Freedman argued that Atticus still worked within a system of institutionalized racism and sexism and should not be revered. Freedman's article sparked a flurry of responses from attorneys who entered the profession holding Atticus Finch as a hero, and the reason they became lawyers. Critics of Atticus such as Freedman maintain that Atticus Finch is morally ambiguous and does not use his legal skills to challenge the racist status quo in Maycomb.While Atticus might have fulfilled the highest calling of a lawyer, Freedman saw the character as failing his calling as a human being in a racist society, and considered that to be a fatal flaw.
Monroe H. Freedman, ""Atticus Finch, Esq., R.I.P.,"" 14 LEGAL TIMES 20 (1992); Monroe H. Freedman, ""Finch: The Lawyer Mythologized,"" 14 LEGAL TIMES 25 (1992) and Monroe Freedman, Atticus Finch – Right and Wrong, 45 Ala. L. Rev. 473 (1994).
Yesterday was Race Day at the New York Times, where two op-eds argued the failure of a certain verdict in Florida was due to the one word unspoken throughout the trial, race. In a "surprising" choice that suggests the power of an excellent public relations team, one op-ed was by Gloria Allred's daughter, Lisa Bloom, who, after explaining the basis for her assumption about what was inside George Zimmerman's head, illuminated the race issue with the insightful:
Huh?In contrast, Cardozo lawprof Ekow Yankah invokes the spirit of his fellow lawprof, Freedman, in writing:
The anger felt by so many African-Americans speaks to the simplest of truths: that race and law cannot be cleanly separated. We are tired of hearing that race is a conversation for another day. We are tired of pretending that “reasonable doubt” is not, in every sense of the word, colored.This conforms with my assumption as well. I find it impossible to believe that Zimmerman's perception of Martin as being "a punk" wasn't colored by race. Sure, there was also youth and attire, but it was part of the whole package. And to the extent that his skin color played a role in his perception that this was a kid who needed to be followed, who posed a threat of doing something wrong, it is racist. Maybe not white hooded, cross-burning racism, but racist nonetheless.
Every step Mr. Martin took toward the end of his too-short life was defined by his race. I do not have to believe that Mr. Zimmerman is a hate-filled racist to recognize that he would probably not even have noticed Mr. Martin if he had been a casually dressed white teenager.
This isn't a legal argument, however. Bloom and Yankah are both writing from the legal perspective, but what they are writing about isn't legal. It's sociological, a condemnation of a society that is still racist despite having a black president. Anyone who thinks it's "problem solved" is delusional.
But Yankah contends that it is "the simplest of truths: that race and law cannot be cleanly separated." Cleanly? No, it probably can't be cleanly separated, though it's similarly unclear that this constitutes "the simplest of truths." There is nothing simple about it.
It gives rise to a troubling question, that Yankah fails to adequately address and is way over Bloom's head.
What is reasonable to do, especially in the dark of night, is defined by preconceived social roles that paint young black men as potential criminals and predators. Black men, the narrative dictates, are dangerous, to be watched and put down at the first false move. This pain is one all black men know; putting away the tie you wear to the office means peeling off the assumption that you are owed equal respect. Mr. Martin’s hoodie struck the deepest chord because we know that daring to wear jeans and a hooded sweatshirt too often means that the police or other citizens are judged to be reasonable in fearing you.Being fully willing to accept that race factored into Zimmerman's perception, based on my own personal bias, the question that remains unanswered is what should the law have done about it?We know this, yet every time a case like this offers a chance for the country to tackle the evil of racial discrimination in our criminal law, courts have deliberately silenced our ability to expose it. The Supreme Court has held that even if your race is what makes your actions suspicious to the police, their suspicions are reasonable so long as an officer can later construct a race-neutral narrative.
Does the introduction of race by the prosecution into Zimmerman's perceptions alter the rule of self-defense? Does it render his subsequent conduct unlawful, even if it would have been lawful otherwise? Should there be two rules of law, one for interactions between people of different races where perceptions of the significance of conduct is assumed to be racially related, if not motivated?
To point out that we still live in a society where race remains a pervasive unresolved issue is to state the obvious. To suggest that the criminal law should accommodate it is to present an intractable problem. Atticus Finch didn't hesitate to put his life on the line for his client, a black man accused of raping a white woman. But he didn't do enough because he didn't confront the racist society in defending Tom Robinson?
If the prosecution had been allowed, and inclined, to argue that George Zimmerman's conduct was racially motivated, and that his ultimate decision to shoot and kill Trayvon Martin was, at least in the tiniest of ways, based upon his race, would that have rendered his belief that he was about to suffer death or serious injury unreasonable? If his head was being beaten against concrete by a white youth, as opposed to a black youth, would the harm have been different?
The argument that this scenario would never have commenced had Trayvon Martin been a white youth in a sports jacket and khakis is likely true. It's pure speculation no matter how much your head screams "yes, yes, yes," of course, but still. Yet how would the law have been any different at the point where a shot was fired?
If we are to have a nation of laws to guide ourselves, how do we draw these vague, fuzzy lines where the law ceases to apply, where it's a free for all, where there is no longer a fixed right and wrong and everything becomes a matter of feelings, assumptions and personal perspective? Yankah may be right that race and law cannot be cleanly separated in our collective consciousness, but then we cease to be a nation of laws when we ignore one for the other.
You might prefer that to happen here, but will you feel the same when you sit in the defendant's chair? So what would Atticus Finch have done? He would have defended George Zimmerman based on the law, even if he failed to meet Monroe Freedman's expectation that he not be morally ambiguous. Atticus Finch would have still been the paragon of honor, even in the face of societal condemnation. That's what criminal defense lawyers do. That's what we are sworn to do.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/16/what-would-atticus-have-done.aspx?ref=rss
injury lawyer injury lawyers international law international law schools internet lawyer
Marijuana, Federal Law, and the States: The Great Legal Divide
Federal law bans marijuana nationwide and yet some states have decided to license its trade. So, where does this leave citizens, local government, and attorneys who work in the cannabis industry? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams interview Brian Vicente, Dan Riffle and Kathy Haddock to discuss the challenges and liabilities that persist in the void between federal and state drug laws.
Brian Vicente is a Colorado criminal defense attorney and founding partner of Vicente Sederberg. He also serves as Executive Director for Sensible Colorado, chairs the Denver Mayor's Marijuana Policy Review Panel, and coordinates the Colorado Bar Association's Drug Policy Project.
Dan Riffle is a former assistant prosecutor for Vinton County, Ohio who has turned lobbyist on Capitol Hill. He currently serves as the Director of Federal Policies for Marijuana Policy Project and has shepherded 2013 legislation through Illinois making it the second largest medical marijuana state.
Kathy Haddock is the Senior Assistant City Attorney for the City of Boulder, Colorado. She is primarily responsible for advising finance, records, elections, airport, special districts, and special projects including medical and recreational marijuana. She has also been responsible for drafting the laws that license and govern medical marijuana businesses in Boulder, Colorado.
Brian Vicente is a Colorado criminal defense attorney and founding partner of Vicente Sederberg. He also serves as Executive Director for Sensible Colorado, chairs the Denver Mayor's Marijuana Policy Review Panel, and coordinates the Colorado Bar Association's Drug Policy Project.
Dan Riffle is a former assistant prosecutor for Vinton County, Ohio who has turned lobbyist on Capitol Hill. He currently serves as the Director of Federal Policies for Marijuana Policy Project and has shepherded 2013 legislation through Illinois making it the second largest medical marijuana state.
Kathy Haddock is the Senior Assistant City Attorney for the City of Boulder, Colorado. She is primarily responsible for advising finance, records, elections, airport, special districts, and special projects including medical and recreational marijuana. She has also been responsible for drafting the laws that license and govern medical marijuana businesses in Boulder, Colorado.
All Zimmerman or All Trayvon Martin
Many criminal defense lawyers studiously ignore cases that catch the public's attention. They just aren't that legally interesting, even if the facts or issues give rise to popular passion. And so it's been for the trial of George Zimmerman for murder 2º in the killing of Trayvon Martin. Aside from John Steele's having raised the question of the ethics of overcharging, there hasn't been a whole lot to write about.
Now that the trial is coming to a close, however, an interesting question, both legal and tactical, has arisen: would it be best for the defense to take an all-or-nothing approach, murder 2º or acquittal, or a split-the-baby approach, charging the jury on the lesser-included crime of manslaughter.
As Jacob Gershman writes at the Wall Street Journal law blog, the die has been cast.
While it may be that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, that he feared his life to be so endangered as to allow him to lawfully kill another person, isn't entirely persuasive, there is strong support for his claim that he was in fear, even if he overreacted.
That the prosecution chose to shoot low and hope for a compromise rather than a murder conviction, while the defense went for all-or-nothing and fought the lesser charge, reflects their view of the relative strength of their case. Not surprisingly, the prosecution is showing some serious weakness in its faith that its murder 2 charge will bear out.
As John Steele argued before trial, there is a strong current of thought that the prosecution followed a political path, appeasing angry voices demanding Justice for Trayvon without giving the facts of the case much thought. It appears that the trial evidence has borne this out to a large extent.
But most damning is the prosecution's second request of Judge Debra Nelson.
It appears that while the judge hasn't tossed the murder 2º count as being legally insufficient, which would seem to address the ethical question of the charge being within the very large ballpark of reasonable charges under the facts of the case, neither the judge nor the prosecution has much faith that the jury will convict. The prosecution is now grasping at straws, hoping to get a conviction for anything it can.
For the defense, given the evidence that's come in, this isn't a good thing or particularly fair thing. They tried a case to the charge, and are now faced with the possibility of a compromise verdict from a jury that might feel badly enough at the death of a young man (which is quite understandable, regardless of whether he contributed to it) to feel that Zimmerman ought to be convicted of something.
While this isn't the way it's supposed to go in theory, it's a nightmare for the defense, having fought the charge only to face being skewered by a compromise.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Now that the trial is coming to a close, however, an interesting question, both legal and tactical, has arisen: would it be best for the defense to take an all-or-nothing approach, murder 2º or acquittal, or a split-the-baby approach, charging the jury on the lesser-included crime of manslaughter.
As Jacob Gershman writes at the Wall Street Journal law blog, the die has been cast.
Notwithstanding what either party individually contends, it remains the judge's responsibility to decide whether to submit a lesser-included offense to the jury if one party requests it. So if the prosecution felt sufficiently secure in its case that it would get a murder conviction, while the defense feared conviction and was looking to find an out, they would be fighting against a manslaughter instruction lest the jury, feeling any sympathy toward the defendant, compromise. That's not happening here.George Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. So why do jurors now have an option of convicting him of manslaughter?
The short answer: the judge said they could.
Yet the option, which was supported by prosecutors but raised the hackles of the defense, is not clearly spelled out in Florida law.
While it may be that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, that he feared his life to be so endangered as to allow him to lawfully kill another person, isn't entirely persuasive, there is strong support for his claim that he was in fear, even if he overreacted.
Florida law works differently. There’s no slicing and dicing of self-defense. The penal code doesn’t recognize “imperfect self defense.” The law forces juries to either believe that someone had a right to act in self-defense or is a murderer.
There is a loophole, however, as illustrated by Mr. Zimmerman’s trial, which entered into closing arguments Thursday.
In Florida, a judge can choose to give juries a middle-of-the-road option, saying it can convict someone of voluntary manslaughter if it isn’t convinced that the defendant acted out of “ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent.” Voluntary manslaughter is a catch-all offense that includes a killing caused by “culpable negligence.”
That the prosecution chose to shoot low and hope for a compromise rather than a murder conviction, while the defense went for all-or-nothing and fought the lesser charge, reflects their view of the relative strength of their case. Not surprisingly, the prosecution is showing some serious weakness in its faith that its murder 2 charge will bear out.
As John Steele argued before trial, there is a strong current of thought that the prosecution followed a political path, appeasing angry voices demanding Justice for Trayvon without giving the facts of the case much thought. It appears that the trial evidence has borne this out to a large extent.
But most damning is the prosecution's second request of Judge Debra Nelson.
So a reduced charge of manslaughter still isn't sufficient for the prosecution to reach its comfort zone, and it's digging even deeper for an even lesser charge of murder 3º. Not only is that damning and humiliating, but as West says, it's "outrageous." What's next, trespassing because Zimmerman walked on somebody else's lawn?Prosecutor Richard Mantei argued that instructions for third-degree murder should be included on the premise that Zimmerman committed child abuse when he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin because Martin was underage.
But defense attorney Don West called the proposed instruction "a trick," and he accused the prosecutor of springing it on the defense at the last minute.
"Just when I didn't think this case could get any more bizarre, the state is alleging child abuse?" West said. "This is outrageous. It's outrageous the state would seek to do this at this time."
It appears that while the judge hasn't tossed the murder 2º count as being legally insufficient, which would seem to address the ethical question of the charge being within the very large ballpark of reasonable charges under the facts of the case, neither the judge nor the prosecution has much faith that the jury will convict. The prosecution is now grasping at straws, hoping to get a conviction for anything it can.
For the defense, given the evidence that's come in, this isn't a good thing or particularly fair thing. They tried a case to the charge, and are now faced with the possibility of a compromise verdict from a jury that might feel badly enough at the death of a young man (which is quite understandable, regardless of whether he contributed to it) to feel that Zimmerman ought to be convicted of something.
While this isn't the way it's supposed to go in theory, it's a nightmare for the defense, having fought the charge only to face being skewered by a compromise.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/12/all-zimmerman-or-all-trayvon-martin-2.aspx?ref=rss
family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)